Patent references to another patent's claim 0

[MERose]

Hi! I have a question about references as per DocDB when the referenced part of the document is "claim 0". The documtation states 0 is the default value, indicating "the relevant claim is not known".

What does it mean when a patent A cites "claim 0" of patent B (as written in DocDB) under the following two different cases:

• the search report of patent A actually mentiones relevant claims of patent B. Example: EP2092826 citing JP2006213664

• patent A cites all claims of patent B (which is also indicated in the search report) and then addtionally claim 0. Example: EP2102306 citing US917503A

In both cases the explanation "the relevant claim is not known" doesn't seem right to me.

[EPO / OPS Support]

Hi

Unfortunately, I could not find 0 claim reference in DOCDB exchange files, please send me a screenshot or the record to patentdata@epo.org and we will have a look and correct if correction will be needed.

Regards,
Vesna for Patent data team

[Danielsurry]

Hi! I have a question about references as per DocDB when the referenced part of the document is "claim 0". The documtation states 0 is the default value, indicating "the relevant claim is not known".

What does it mean when a patent A cites "claim 0" of patent B (as written in DocDB) under the following two different cases:

• the search report of patent A actually mentiones relevant claims of patent B. Example: EP2092826 citing JP2006213664

• patent A cites all claims of patent B (which is also indicated in the search report) and then addtionally claim 0. Example: EP2102306 citing US917503A

In both cases the explanation "the relevant claim is not known" doesn't seem right to me.

Hi,
In the patent world, "claim 0" is often used as a placeholder to indicate that the relevant claim is not specified or is unknown. However, in the two cases you mentioned, it seems that the use of "claim 0" in the references of patent A might not be accurate.

In the first case, when the search report of patent A mentions the relevant claims of patent B, it suggests that the relevant claims are known and "claim 0" might have been used mistakenly.

In the second case, when patent A cites all claims of patent B and then adds "claim 0", it suggests that the author of patent A might have wanted to include all claims of patent B as references, but also wanted to leave room for any additional claims that might be added in the future. In this case, "claim 0" can be seen as a placeholder for potential future claims.

It is important to note that the use of "claim 0" is not standardized and can vary depending on the specific context and the author's intention. It is always best to consult the patent itself and the search report for a more accurate understanding of the references. MyInsite
Regards,
Danielsurry

[Manuelschrader]

I am just want to say that In general, when a patent document cites "claim 0" of another patent document, it means that the citing document is not citing any specific claim of the cited document, but rather the document as a whole. This may occur for a variety of reasons, including when the cited document is considered to be relevant to the invention disclosed in the citing document, but there is no specific claim that is directly relevant.

In the case where a search report of patent A actually mentions relevant claims of patent B, and patent A still cites "claim 0" of patent B, it may suggest that the citing examiner or applicant did not find any of the specific claims of patent B to be particularly relevant to the invention disclosed in patent A, but still considered the document as a whole to be of some relevance.

In the second case, where patent A cites all claims of patent B and additionally cites claim 0, it may be that the citing examiner or applicant considered all of the claims of patent B to be relevant to the invention disclosed in patent A, but also wanted to make it clear that they were not specifically citing any particular claim of patent B.

In either case, the explanation "the relevant claim is not known" in the DocDB documentation may not be entirely accurate, as it implies that there is some uncertainty about which claim of the cited document is being cited. However, it is still possible that there is no specific claim of the cited document that is being cited, and that the citing document is simply citing the document as a whole.